13th February 2007, 11:59 AM
1man and Dr Peter have outlined some of the potential causes and responses above, and I would add a couple more points, although obviously on a general level as I have no knowledge of the actual site or circumstances other than those mentioned already.
Geophysics - everyone involved in archaeology should be aware by now of the benefits and limitations of geophysical survey, especially on sites with a great amount of overburden, which I assume was the case here as the kerbed barrow was not visible as a topographic feature. Basing a target cost for excavation on a geophysical survey is always going to carry some element of risk.
Further evaluation - this project may well have been similar to a great many other road schemes in that intrusive evaluation may not have been possible at a pre-construction stage due to landowner issues. Even with Highways Agency schemes, access can only be enforced for non-intrusive survey (through the serving of a Section 289 notice). If this was the case, then this site should have been flagged up for advance evaluation as soon as the Compulsory Purchase Orders were issued, although target costs for construction would have already been agreed. This should be addressed through a flexible Bill of Quantities that reflects the need for further evaluation and possible mitigation.
The barrow - upon discovering that the barrow was significantly larger and more elaborate than previously thought, all parties involved (including English Heritage) should have met to discuss the issue. I have not checked the Monument Class Description but would have thought that a well-preserved kerbed barrow will meet the criteria for scheduling and preservation in situ should definitely be the preferred option. The balancing pond (if that is what we are discussing) is movable in engineering terms - it can be made to work even if it has to be moved to a non-optimum location - but the issue may well be one of available landtake, i.e. is there enough room to relocate the pond without going back to identifying additional landtake, additional Compulsory Purchase Orders etc.
If full excavation is required, then this should have come from the identified contingency which would have been there as a result of the previously identified risk resulting from incomplete evaluation at target cost stage. It may also have been possible to ask EH to contribute some funding towards this. What is going to happen in post-ex in terms of the costs for sample processing, OSL dating etc ?
Beamo
Geophysics - everyone involved in archaeology should be aware by now of the benefits and limitations of geophysical survey, especially on sites with a great amount of overburden, which I assume was the case here as the kerbed barrow was not visible as a topographic feature. Basing a target cost for excavation on a geophysical survey is always going to carry some element of risk.
Further evaluation - this project may well have been similar to a great many other road schemes in that intrusive evaluation may not have been possible at a pre-construction stage due to landowner issues. Even with Highways Agency schemes, access can only be enforced for non-intrusive survey (through the serving of a Section 289 notice). If this was the case, then this site should have been flagged up for advance evaluation as soon as the Compulsory Purchase Orders were issued, although target costs for construction would have already been agreed. This should be addressed through a flexible Bill of Quantities that reflects the need for further evaluation and possible mitigation.
The barrow - upon discovering that the barrow was significantly larger and more elaborate than previously thought, all parties involved (including English Heritage) should have met to discuss the issue. I have not checked the Monument Class Description but would have thought that a well-preserved kerbed barrow will meet the criteria for scheduling and preservation in situ should definitely be the preferred option. The balancing pond (if that is what we are discussing) is movable in engineering terms - it can be made to work even if it has to be moved to a non-optimum location - but the issue may well be one of available landtake, i.e. is there enough room to relocate the pond without going back to identifying additional landtake, additional Compulsory Purchase Orders etc.
If full excavation is required, then this should have come from the identified contingency which would have been there as a result of the previously identified risk resulting from incomplete evaluation at target cost stage. It may also have been possible to ask EH to contribute some funding towards this. What is going to happen in post-ex in terms of the costs for sample processing, OSL dating etc ?
Beamo